View Poll Results: Which Orion is better? A (smallSM) "CorkScrew Orion" or a (bigSM) "SwissKnife Orion&q

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • The (smallSM) "CorkScrew Orion" >>>

    19 79.17%
  • The (bigSM) "SwissKnife Orion" >>>

    5 20.83%
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 540 of 611

Thread: Which Orion is better? A (smallSM) "CorkScrew-Orion" or a (bigSM) "SwissKnife-Orion"?

  1. #511
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Forget about examples, they only weaken this strong argument.
    maybe, you're right... or not... (everybody can read the article and judge by himself) ...but I'm curious to know if you send your suggestions about "how to write a perfect article" everywhere and to eveyone in the world, or (probably) you think I'm the ONLY that need your writing lessons...
    probably I don't use the best examples, my english is not perfect and my articles have too much colors, caps and bolds... but they always have an "idea" or a new proposal inside them... then (if you want) just look at my idea/proposal instead of do critics to the "style" used to show it
    .

  2. #512
    I'm not attempting to give writing lessons. Of all your articles, this is the first and only argumentation structure remark I have given. All my other remarks were purely on contents of the articles. This remark is not on how you write your articles, it's on how you build an argument. So in fact it's again on the contents.

    And no, it's not only you I give remarks on. I do this with many people, and also like to get feedback on my texts. In fact, that's what I've been doing with my internship report for the last 2 weeks. Really improved my report. The other way around, I have also given feedback on a paper from my senior supervisor. It's a really good way to look critically at your own work and learn how readers perceive it.

    I have never given comments on your English. I know it's not your mother tongue, and it's quite well indeed. The formatting irritates a lot of people, that's something else. But it's your website, if you like the formatting that's your choice.

    The argumentation remark remains beyond personal taste though: an example that can be easily countered by a counterexample is not helping an argument.

  3. #513
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    Its not your grammar or spelling, those would be cheap shot arguements. The incessant color changes, bolding, underlining and excessive punctuation decor (which you've actually stopped using, thank you for that) which are most distracting.

  4. #514
    Its not your grammar or spelling, those would be cheap shot arguements.
    That would be like me exposing Doodler's inability to spell "arguments" correctly.

  5. #515
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    That would be like me exposing Doodler's inability to spell "arguments" correctly.
    you fiend...


  6. #516
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    All my other remarks were purely on contents of the articles. This remark is not on how you write your articles, it's on how you build an argument. So in fact it's again on the contents.
    your remark is a matter of OPINION (I think that my examples are appropriate while you think they aren't) and a matter of FREEDOM (I'm FREE to use/write the examples I want/like in my articles while you're FREE to do critics about them)
    ...formatting irritates...
    the formatting I use is NOT against anyone (I formatted my articles this way months before my first post here)
    .

  7. #517
    your remark is a matter of OPINION (I think that my examples are appropriate while you think they aren't) and a matter of FREEDOM (I'm FREE to use/write the examples I want/like in my articles while you're FREE to do critics about them)
    I'm not forcing you, only try to help with your article.

    And I didn't mean to say that you use the formatting just to get at certain people, I meant to say that it works irritating on many (unspecified) people.

  8. #518
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    ...formatting...
    I've reduced formatting in my posts (while I use it in my articles)
    .

  9. #519
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    I don't think I will ever get my point across.
    As long as the counter-argument is "I didn't mean that", it can go on forever.

  10. #520
    how long do these smiley's keep pulling? I've been watching them for 10 minutes now...

  11. #521
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    how long do these smiley's keep pulling? I've been watching them for 10 minutes now...
    Same as the thread...forever.

  12. #522
    .
    .

    happy to see that (now) other peoples/companies start to agree with my proposals and suggestions ...like this TeamVision plan:

    http://www.teamvisioninc.com/downloa...6-7517-146.pdf

    the TeamVision's plan looks very familiar to me since it has things like:

    - the launch (pag.8) of the cargo/crew ISS/orbital-Orion ("Era-1") with ready available Atlas/Delta (that's possible since an orbital mission needs only 2-3 mT of propellent, so, the full Orion+SM+LAS may weigh less than 20 mT) ...like my (June 30, 2006) "Launch the CEV with Ariane5" article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html

    - the use (pag.14) of ready available TRUE Shuttle-derived hardware to build the (Jupiter-1) Single Launch Vehicle (SLV) for "Era-2" ...like my (May 12, 2006) "Single Launch Vehicle NOW! And "On The Moon" in 2012" article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

    and my (May 21, 2006) "The "3+3 engines" Super SLV" article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html

    rockets that peoples/forums/blogs STILL insist to call "Direct Launcher" (august 2006)

    - the "lengthened version of the Block I SM" for "lunar orbit insertion and trans-earth injection" (pag.14) ...like my (September 12, 2006) "The GIANT mistake of the Orion's SM" article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/013orionSM.html

    and my (September 18, 2006) "CorkScrew Orion or SwissKnife Orion?" article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/014swissCEV.html

    - the "Space Station/Fuel Depot (SSFD)" (pag.37) to perform many moon missions with reusable-LSAMs ...like my (June 5, 2006) "SAVE the Astronauts' LIFE with the LSS" article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html

    and my (May 27, 2006) "Europe on the Moon with the ArianeX" Multiple Launches Architecture (MLA) article:

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

    etc.

    lots of ideas that (surely... ) they have developed "internally"... (since not even NASA, Boeing, LookMart, etc. suggested them)

    just a question... "do you think that also I can propose my next idea/article to the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) like TeamVision have done?"

    .
    .

  13. #523
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    happy to see that (now) other peoples/companies start to agree with my proposals and suggestions ...
    But does NASA? They are the only ones that really matter.

  14. #524
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    But does NASA? They are the only ones that really matter.
    that's true ...however, the planned (ApolloVIII-like) Orion/AresIV missions need a (bigSM) SwissKnife-Orion and an EDS-light
    .

  15. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    ...the planned (ApolloVIII-like) Orion/AresIV missions need a (bigSM) SwissKnife-Orion and an EDS-light.
    In your opinion.

  16. #526
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    3,471
    No they don't. They will work just fine as planned by nasa - none of your modifications needed.

  17. #527
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    In your opinion.
    it's not an "opinion" ...if they WANT to accomplish the (announced) Apollo-8 missions, they NEED a bigger SM to perform (both) LOI and TEI without the LSAM ...or, how they can do that without it? ...about the EDS-light, it may be a version of the Ares-I 2nd stage or a standard EDS with less propellent
    Quote Originally Posted by cjl View Post
    They will work just fine as planned by nasa...
    they have announced the AresIV and the Apollo-8 missions, then, they have CHANGED their plans ...also, they have shifted from the ESAS sortie-missions plan to the current/new "base-first" plan (as suggested in my LSS and ArianeX articles...)
    .

  18. #528
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    it's not an "opinion" ...if they WANT to accomplish the (announced) Apollo-8 missions, they NEED a bigger SM to perform (both) LOI and TEI without the LSAM ...or, how they can do that without it?
    That's not what you were proposing when you advocated the big SM. You said you wanted to upsize the SM to give it the capability to perform both LOI and TEI with the LSAM. This requires a far larger propellant load than an Apollo 8 style mission.

    The most recent data I've seen for Orion gives it a delta-v of 1,738 m/s. The total SM delta-v for Apollo 8 was 2,033 m/s. Although more than the the Orion figure, this is far less than required for your Swissknife-Orion proposal. I also suspect an Apollo 8-like mission can be designed that will work within Orion's delta-v budget. Furthermore, an Apollo 8 style mission is not needed, only proposed. NASA's lunar landing architecture does not need your large SM.

  19. #529
    FWIW - there will be significant delta-V remaining in the EDS given that no LSAM would be in the stack for an Apollo 8 type mission. It's not out of the question that the remaining fuel of the EDS could be used for LOI and the the SM for TEI.

    Doug

  20. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    ...You said you wanted to upsize the SM to give it the capability to perform both LOI and TEI with the LSAM.
    you remember we have discussed a lot about the two options: bigSM with propellent for LOI with LSAM (and a smaller LSAM with smaller tanks/propellent and more payload) OR bigSM with propellent ONLY for LOI but WITHOUT the LSAM (and its tanks half-filled for Orion+LSAM missions)
    you remember, the last version we agreed was the latter ...also (to be REALIST) in my latest posts (and my article update) I've simply suggested to add (as standard in all Orion) only the extra-tanks' volume for an Orion-alone's LOI with an increase of the Orion+SM GLOW of a mere +0.5 mT (but with lots of advantages)
    then... when I talk of a "SwissKinife-Orion" I refer (only) to a STANDARD Orion with a (0.5 mT) slightly enlarged SM tanks so it will be always READY for (both) an Orion+LSAM mission (with half filled tanks) OR and Orion-alone (Apollo-8) mission (with full propellent)
    ...an Apollo 8 style mission is not needed, only proposed...
    if they have proposed that kind of missions (and have announced the AresIV) then, they may happen soon, and, since the standard SM's tanks/propellent are designed for TEI+redundancy only, an Apollo-8 mission needs slightly enlarged SM tanks for LOI+TEI+redundancy
    .

  21. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    FWIW - there will be significant delta-V remaining in the EDS given that no LSAM would be in the stack for an Apollo 8 type mission. It's not out of the question that the remaining fuel of the EDS could be used for LOI and the the SM for TEI.
    but, can it be suffucient to brake to LOI the full EDS+Orion+SM mass? ...and, can the J-2x be reliable enough for a further (three-days later) burning? ...also, to accomplish a LOI with the EDS the latter needs an advanced attitude/navigation system ...my opinion is that a SwissKnife-Orion is the simplest solution since it must brake to LOI only the Orion+SM mass
    .

  22. #532
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    but, can it be suffucient to brake to LOI the full EDS+Orion+SM mass?
    Yes, definitely.

    LSAM mass = 45 mT
    Orion mass = 23 mT
    EDS dry mass = 22 mT
    J-2X specific impulse = 451.5 s
    TLI delta-v = 3,050 m/s

    Based on this, the amount of propellant needed for TLI on a standard mission is 89 mT. If we omit the LSAM but assume we still have 89 mT of propellant, the delta-v the EDS can provide with Orion only is about 4,830 m/s. The extra 1,780 m/s gained by the omission of the LSAM is more than enough for LOI. Furthermore, since the Ares V will be launching without the extra mass of the LSAM, it will arrive to orbit with far more than 89 mT of propellant remaining (assuming it is fully fueled in the first place).

  23. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    Yes, definitely.
    but...

    1. many EDS adds very much space-junk around the moon (or on the moon surface)

    2. a bigSM Orion may be ready for NEO missions and has enough propellent to change its lunar orbit for polar (or multiple) missions

    3. the SwissKinfe-Orion and the "EDS-light" (thanks to less dry mass and a smaller engine) can be launched with smaller and cheaper rockets (that is the goal of great part of my proposals) so, twice+ missions per years may be accomplished with the same funds

    use the EDS only to "kill" the SwissKnife-Orion is NOT a good choice

    (and still remain the problems of the "J-2x be reliability for a further (three-days later) burning" and the EDS "advanced attitude/navigation system" that need additional costs and test-launches)

    .

  24. #534
    The J2X is already being designed for a significant on-orbit loiter time because of the need to launch before the CEV that would only launch after the EDS/LSAM was put in orbit,

    Given weather/technical problems dictate the most launches do not happen on the first attempt of the first launch window, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect the EDS/J2X to have a significant on-orbit life so that it could wait for the following Ares 1 launch, certainly more than would be required for a A8 style mission.

    Furthermore, a single EDS for a one off A8 style mission that would then be crashed into the surface (and from which seismology could be done) is hardly extensive littering.

    Doug

  25. #535
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    Furthermore, a single EDS for a one off A8 style mission that would then be crashed into the surface (and from which seismology could be done) is hardly extensive littering.
    It also looks like there is enough EDS propellant capacity to eject the EDS out of lunar orbit and into a solar orbit if they don't want to crash it into the Moon. I don't think, however, crashing it into the Moon is a big deal. As you say, doing so may even have scientific side benefits. Most of the Apollo S-IVB stages were crashed into the Moon for this reason.

    If we start out with 89 mT of propellant in Earth orbit, and we require 3,050 m/s for TLI and 1,000 m/s for LOI, then we are left with about about 9 mT of propellant left after Orion separation. This is enough to provide about 1,500 m/s to eject the EDS into a disposal orbit around the Sun.

  26. #536
    Also enough for a disposal trajectory into the sun, for those really concerned about deep space debris?

  27. #537
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    3,471
    Nowhere close.

    Disposal into the sun would require roughly 30km/s delta v, far more than any proposed craft would have.

  28. #538
    30 km/s delta v is more than a bit exotic indeed . I just asked because it was "quite late" here to start a calculation and didn't have a gut feeling on exactly how large the required delta v would be. Thanks for doing the work for me, even though it is roughly just stating the earth's orbital velocity, something I failed to reason yesterday night .

    Sorry for diverging, but I often hear "shoot nuclear waste off this planet to the sun", but that also would require 30 km/s, which isn't very realistic with current technology .

  29. #539
    .

    the main purposes of (near) ALL my ideas and proposals are:

    1. save MASS

    2. save TIME

    3. save MONEY

    (apart of the problems, tests, costs, etc.) use the EDS for LOI still needs the Ares-I, AresV, J-2x, 5-segments SRB, very high R&D costs, very long development/test/launch timeline, etc. to have a few missions per year from 2020 (now 2021...)

    my SwissKnife/TBS-Orion + newLAS need smaller rockets, smaller EDS, ready available engines and motors, etc. to have best vehicles, faster design and less costs ...then, more missions per year (and sooner) with the same funds

    .

  30. #540
    Iíve just had an interesting document come to my attention that verifies Orion does indeed have sufficient delta-v capability to perform an Apollo 8-style mission without the modifications advocated by Gaetano. NASA does not need a Swissknife-Orion.

    I previously wrote,

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    The most recent data I've seen for Orion gives it a delta-v of 1,738 m/s. The total SM delta-v for Apollo 8 was 2,033 m/s. Although more than the Orion figure, this is far less than required for your Swissknife-Orion proposal. I also suspect an Apollo 8-like mission can be designed that will work within Orion's delta-v budget. Furthermore, an Apollo 8 style mission is not needed, only proposed. NASA's lunar landing architecture does not need your large SM.
    And as I suspected, lower energy missions are possible that reduce the delta-v requirement to within Orionís budget. This NASA document from 1991 analyzes a couple low-energy options for sending a mission to lunar orbit. To reduce the delta-v requirement, a 5-day transit time was assumed instead of Apollo 8ís 3-day transit. Two lunar orbits options were analyzed, a 100-km circular low lunar orbit (LLO) and a 12-hour highly-elliptic lunar orbit (HELO) with a perilune of 100 km. 50 m/s was budgeted for midcourse corrections (MCC) on both the outbound and inbound legs to the flight. Here is a delta-v summary:

    LLO Option
    MCC: 50 m/s
    LOI: 860 m/s
    TEI: 680 m/s
    MCC: 50 m/s
    Total: 1,640 m/s

    HELO Option
    MCC: 50 m/s
    LOI: 370 m/s
    TEI: 190 m/s
    MCC: 50 m/s
    Total: 660 m/s

    So clearly Orionís budgeted delta-v of 1,738 m/s is sufficient to perform a low-energy lunar orbit mission without the LSAM.

Similar Threads

  1. 16/8/2010 - AR 11098 gave a fantastic "ORION SUNSPOTS BELT".
    By THEO-007 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-16, 12:50 PM
  2. Holy moly! Orion now has 36", 40" and 50" Dobs!
    By redshifter in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-07, 11:43 AM
  3. "Ares and Orion Are the Way to Go"
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-31, 01:20 AM
  4. Supersonic "bullets" in the Orion Nebula
    By Blob in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2007-May-01, 08:02 PM
  5. () -- EggCEV - The "bell-shaped" Orion
    By gaetanomarano in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-05, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: